I don't think the issue should be whether anti DRM clauses are good or bad, or whether some download sites force use of DRM (I don't think you can distribute GPL on ios because apple can't adhere to the licence, but that doesn't mean the GPL is wrong for software). Such clauses are still compatible with being Open/Free.
However, it is a problem that it seems to be a non notable licence, and adding this would just add to risk of licence incompatibility. Is it accepted by the OSI or FSF as an open or free licence?
Since it doesn't seem to add anything new (it's well covered by the CC licences) there seems to be no benefit to adding it. Unlike the GPL debate, there doesn't seem to be notable existing game art under this licence.
As an aside, I'm surprised the Wikipedia article for it has survived for so long, when it cites no third party sources or evidence of notability...
@caeles: My point being, if there isn't another site that does what OGA provides, OGA still serves a need.
LPC is indeed an excellent showcase of doing things right - not only sources, but also being game ready with sufficient variations and animating to make a game in the same style of art.
But if we set those as requirements - I fear we'd end up with OGA being LPC, and not a huge amount else. Everyone agrees (I think) that in principle, more sources is a good thing, but (a) there's the question of how to do it, and (b) practical issues that some content has massive sources. LPC is a way to encourage such things by making a showcase of how to do things right - a "stick" approach would imo see OGA wither away due to lack of content, and be far less useful for game developers.
@chasersgaming I think the issue comes back to it having been used for older game art, which would be a shame to lose, and it's unclear if anything can be done to relicense them. The example of it causing problems is with Debian, who imo need to address their inconsistency if they allow games with gpl art without sources (well known games, so not ones that slipped through by mistake). It leads to the absurd situation that I could take a Debian game like FreeCiv, make a new game using it, and then not be able to distribute that game on Debian...
But the art on OGA is under licences that are "Free as in freedom".
Now sure, it is an interesting point that whilst source code is considered an essential part of being Free Software or Open Source, this doesn't seem to be the case for art. But the issue isn't with OGA, you're arguing against the entire consensus in the free software movement of how art licences are considered, as far as I can tell.
I believe the intent of OGA is to provide assets under free licences, and it does that. Having "source" for assets, where such a concept makes sense, is useful, but not a requirement. It doesn't matter whether the resultant game is considered "free" or not - after all, OGA assets could be used in closed source games.
"The same art can be used as for non-free games. Thus, you do not need a special site for art for such games."
But art under non-free licences often suffer from any of:
* Don't allow derivative works, so using in a game could be problematic.
* Don't allow redistribution at all, so using in a game is out of the question.
* Allow redistribution, but not commercial use, so is incompatible with being Free/Open.
* Paid-for licences typically won't be transferrable, so won't allow someone making a derivative of my game even if they don't modify the art.
* Custom written licences that might in theory allow everything licences on OGA allow, but aren't considered Free/Open for whatever reason - this increases risk of licence incompatibility, as well as typically being less clear on what is or isn't allowed.
If OGA serves no need, can you provide a link to another art site that can be used for game development just as well as OGA?
caeles: That's a good point about the purpose of the site - though games are a derivative work[*], and surely the main purpose of this site, and it's possible to use assets on this site to make games, without needing things like Photoshop/GIMP or project files for whatever music program.
That said, there have been times when I wished there was some of the "source" available - most obvious example is seeing a spritesheet that's obviously been rendered from a 3D model, but not having that 3D model available.
Still, I don't see it would be good to make it a requirement - that might risk lots of assets not being on OGA at all. Rather it be something to encourage people to do, imo.
[*] Well, leaving aside the debate about whether games are derivative works or collections, but my point is, it's possible to use the assets to make games.
Perhaps we could ask uploaders selecting gpl to provide the source, or say the assets are the preferred form. If (like Wesnoth) someone says the assets are the preferred form, then even if that seems dubious (e.g., ogg files for music), I'd say if that's good enough for Debian, I don't see why OGA should worry.
If uploading someone else's gpl art (or uploading a derived work), then I'd say they need to see what was specified as the source. So for the heroism piece, it'd be interesting to ask egoboo, do they have the sources, or can they declare the asset to be the source?
I agree with capbros, it'd be interesting to see what Debian say if you asserted that, for heroism, the ogg is the preferred form that the author supplied. If they don't accept that, challenge them to explain why that's different to Wesnoth.
In the example of supertux, I agree that is a clear violation when a separate source form existed. I think sorting out those issues, if any exist on OGA, makes sense.
Thanks for checking. I wonder, what about things that are on Debian repositories - this seems to include Wesnoth and FreeCiv, which have gpl art/music don't they? What about SuperTuxKart? I think my feeling is, if Debian are ok with that, then there seems to be some inconsistency that Debian need to resolve. OGA might choose to take its own stance in advance if that, but we can't say "we're not allowing gpl for art because debian don't" if that isn't consistently true imo.
Or these games are also no longer on Debian repositories, or they don't include music and make an exception for sound/images, or they're grandfathered in, or something else? Depending on what the answer is, it could guide a solution here. (I mean, if the usually very strict Debian Free guidelines are ok with gpl for art in some cases, then it should be good for OGA, imo.)
The main reason for wanting gpl on oga in the first place seems to be for existing games like Wesnoth and FreeCiv, so it seems sensible to see how Debian have resolved that - or see if we can raise the issue with them.
I'm not sure proprietary formats makes things fuzzy, the same could apply to any proprietary programming language. I'd say the preferred form is whatever the person used to edit, even if it's proprietary - this doesn't mean it has to be preferred by other people (someone might write in assembler and therefore release the assembly language code, the fact that I might prefer to work in something higher level doesn't change that).
It would be a shame to disallow existing gpl art out there even if we'd prefer a different licence to have been used.
The heroism/debian example shows that this can be a problem in practice, not merely in principle. Disallowing gpl altogether would have meant that music never got uploaded at all - which would have saved at least one developer time, but might have been a shame. Does the egoboo game contain the source? I see that egoboo is available on Debian repositories, so why don't Debian have a problem with that?
Whilst the GPL isn't as clear as CC0, the same is true of any licence out there, free or proprietary. People have their reasons for not releasing everything they do as public domain, and we have to work with that.
"Just assume when I say 'the license compels you to distribute as CC-BY-SA' I mean 'IF you chose to distribute, the license compels you to distribute as CC-BY-SA'."
Just to clarify - I mean the situation where someone is distributing a game, and not distributing the source; just because someone chooses to do the former, the licence doesn't compel them to also distribute the source.
"I certainly agree, there seems to be plenty of grounds to suggest that source would not be covered by the SA clause. On the otherhand, I don't think I could look anybody thinking of using an CC-BY-SA asset in a closed source project in the eye and say 'Yeah that's a great idea! You should do that!'"
Well I wouldn't recommend someone using CC BY SA for a commercial project, but that's more because of the risk of CC BY SA applying to the entire released game (and in particular, the requirement that people can distribute it for free is not what most commercial game developers want). I wouldn't see any argument that they'd have to release their source code, just as I wouldn't see any argument that they'd to release things like Photoshop files, 3D source files, or any other data that was used to create the game. Even if the source code is considered "an adaption", there's nothing in the licence that says the source must be distributed with the binary.
If someone was using CC BY SA for a closed source freeware game, where they distributed the game binary as CC BY SA, I wouldn't see any risks that they'd have to release the source code too.
"I guess for the purposes of the site docs and faq, the issue can be left aside, as it's probably just enough to include a warning that a project, or parts of it, may fall under the SA clause, without delving into what those parts might be."
I don't think the issue should be whether anti DRM clauses are good or bad, or whether some download sites force use of DRM (I don't think you can distribute GPL on ios because apple can't adhere to the licence, but that doesn't mean the GPL is wrong for software). Such clauses are still compatible with being Open/Free.
However, it is a problem that it seems to be a non notable licence, and adding this would just add to risk of licence incompatibility. Is it accepted by the OSI or FSF as an open or free licence?
Since it doesn't seem to add anything new (it's well covered by the CC licences) there seems to be no benefit to adding it. Unlike the GPL debate, there doesn't seem to be notable existing game art under this licence.
As an aside, I'm surprised the Wikipedia article for it has survived for so long, when it cites no third party sources or evidence of notability...
@caeles: My point being, if there isn't another site that does what OGA provides, OGA still serves a need.
LPC is indeed an excellent showcase of doing things right - not only sources, but also being game ready with sufficient variations and animating to make a game in the same style of art.
But if we set those as requirements - I fear we'd end up with OGA being LPC, and not a huge amount else. Everyone agrees (I think) that in principle, more sources is a good thing, but (a) there's the question of how to do it, and (b) practical issues that some content has massive sources. LPC is a way to encourage such things by making a showcase of how to do things right - a "stick" approach would imo see OGA wither away due to lack of content, and be far less useful for game developers.
@chasersgaming I think the issue comes back to it having been used for older game art, which would be a shame to lose, and it's unclear if anything can be done to relicense them. The example of it causing problems is with Debian, who imo need to address their inconsistency if they allow games with gpl art without sources (well known games, so not ones that slipped through by mistake). It leads to the absurd situation that I could take a Debian game like FreeCiv, make a new game using it, and then not be able to distribute that game on Debian...
But the art on OGA is under licences that are "Free as in freedom".
Now sure, it is an interesting point that whilst source code is considered an essential part of being Free Software or Open Source, this doesn't seem to be the case for art. But the issue isn't with OGA, you're arguing against the entire consensus in the free software movement of how art licences are considered, as far as I can tell.
I believe the intent of OGA is to provide assets under free licences, and it does that. Having "source" for assets, where such a concept makes sense, is useful, but not a requirement. It doesn't matter whether the resultant game is considered "free" or not - after all, OGA assets could be used in closed source games.
"The same art can be used as for non-free games. Thus, you do not need a special site for art for such games."
But art under non-free licences often suffer from any of:
* Don't allow derivative works, so using in a game could be problematic.
* Don't allow redistribution at all, so using in a game is out of the question.
* Allow redistribution, but not commercial use, so is incompatible with being Free/Open.
* Paid-for licences typically won't be transferrable, so won't allow someone making a derivative of my game even if they don't modify the art.
* Custom written licences that might in theory allow everything licences on OGA allow, but aren't considered Free/Open for whatever reason - this increases risk of licence incompatibility, as well as typically being less clear on what is or isn't allowed.
If OGA serves no need, can you provide a link to another art site that can be used for game development just as well as OGA?
caeles: That's a good point about the purpose of the site - though games are a derivative work[*], and surely the main purpose of this site, and it's possible to use assets on this site to make games, without needing things like Photoshop/GIMP or project files for whatever music program.
That said, there have been times when I wished there was some of the "source" available - most obvious example is seeing a spritesheet that's obviously been rendered from a 3D model, but not having that 3D model available.
Still, I don't see it would be good to make it a requirement - that might risk lots of assets not being on OGA at all. Rather it be something to encourage people to do, imo.
[*] Well, leaving aside the debate about whether games are derivative works or collections, but my point is, it's possible to use the assets to make games.
Perhaps we could ask uploaders selecting gpl to provide the source, or say the assets are the preferred form. If (like Wesnoth) someone says the assets are the preferred form, then even if that seems dubious (e.g., ogg files for music), I'd say if that's good enough for Debian, I don't see why OGA should worry.
If uploading someone else's gpl art (or uploading a derived work), then I'd say they need to see what was specified as the source. So for the heroism piece, it'd be interesting to ask egoboo, do they have the sources, or can they declare the asset to be the source?
I agree with capbros, it'd be interesting to see what Debian say if you asserted that, for heroism, the ogg is the preferred form that the author supplied. If they don't accept that, challenge them to explain why that's different to Wesnoth.
In the example of supertux, I agree that is a clear violation when a separate source form existed. I think sorting out those issues, if any exist on OGA, makes sense.
Thanks for checking. I wonder, what about things that are on Debian repositories - this seems to include Wesnoth and FreeCiv, which have gpl art/music don't they? What about SuperTuxKart? I think my feeling is, if Debian are ok with that, then there seems to be some inconsistency that Debian need to resolve. OGA might choose to take its own stance in advance if that, but we can't say "we're not allowing gpl for art because debian don't" if that isn't consistently true imo.
Or these games are also no longer on Debian repositories, or they don't include music and make an exception for sound/images, or they're grandfathered in, or something else? Depending on what the answer is, it could guide a solution here. (I mean, if the usually very strict Debian Free guidelines are ok with gpl for art in some cases, then it should be good for OGA, imo.)
The main reason for wanting gpl on oga in the first place seems to be for existing games like Wesnoth and FreeCiv, so it seems sensible to see how Debian have resolved that - or see if we can raise the issue with them.
Some old discussion at https://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2016 - seems they were happy to consider the files themselves as the source.
The FSF's view is at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware . They say it shouldn't be used if it's not clear what the source form is - but I can see cases where it is clear.
I'm not sure proprietary formats makes things fuzzy, the same could apply to any proprietary programming language. I'd say the preferred form is whatever the person used to edit, even if it's proprietary - this doesn't mean it has to be preferred by other people (someone might write in assembler and therefore release the assembly language code, the fact that I might prefer to work in something higher level doesn't change that).
It would be a shame to disallow existing gpl art out there even if we'd prefer a different licence to have been used.
The heroism/debian example shows that this can be a problem in practice, not merely in principle. Disallowing gpl altogether would have meant that music never got uploaded at all - which would have saved at least one developer time, but might have been a shame. Does the egoboo game contain the source? I see that egoboo is available on Debian repositories, so why don't Debian have a problem with that?
Whilst the GPL isn't as clear as CC0, the same is true of any licence out there, free or proprietary. People have their reasons for not releasing everything they do as public domain, and we have to work with that.
N.B., website now moved to http://gigalomania.sourceforge.net/ .
Note that all licences on here allow commercial use (CC Non-commercial isn't allowed here).
CC BY-SA would also likely (as far as I can tell) require that the resultant movie is released under the same (CC BY-SA) licence.
"Just assume when I say 'the license compels you to distribute as CC-BY-SA' I mean 'IF you chose to distribute, the license compels you to distribute as CC-BY-SA'."
Just to clarify - I mean the situation where someone is distributing a game, and not distributing the source; just because someone chooses to do the former, the licence doesn't compel them to also distribute the source.
"I certainly agree, there seems to be plenty of grounds to suggest that source would not be covered by the SA clause. On the otherhand, I don't think I could look anybody thinking of using an CC-BY-SA asset in a closed source project in the eye and say 'Yeah that's a great idea! You should do that!'"
Well I wouldn't recommend someone using CC BY SA for a commercial project, but that's more because of the risk of CC BY SA applying to the entire released game (and in particular, the requirement that people can distribute it for free is not what most commercial game developers want). I wouldn't see any argument that they'd have to release their source code, just as I wouldn't see any argument that they'd to release things like Photoshop files, 3D source files, or any other data that was used to create the game. Even if the source code is considered "an adaption", there's nothing in the licence that says the source must be distributed with the binary.
If someone was using CC BY SA for a closed source freeware game, where they distributed the game binary as CC BY SA, I wouldn't see any risks that they'd have to release the source code too.
"I guess for the purposes of the site docs and faq, the issue can be left aside, as it's probably just enough to include a warning that a project, or parts of it, may fall under the SA clause, without delving into what those parts might be."
I agree with that.
Pages